On 6/24/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/28/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>
> On 3/28/07, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> > > Your implication that she is always a reliable source about
> > > is as misguided as the assertion
you are arguing against, that she
> > > never is. A big problem is that you fail to distinguish that for
> > > she is a reliable source.
> > >
> > Her claims on matters related to publishing are sufficiently
> > significant that they can reasonably be reported. Where there is
> > disagreement, they should be clearly attributed to her point of
> > > Her blog is *always* a great
source for her opinion. It may or may
> > > be a reliable source for fact, and
is probably not most of the
> > > no matter how often she's
> > And her opinion on publishing matters is worth including. One such
> > notable opinion is "Barbara Bauer is a fraud."
> > > As to your point about where her words are published, yes it does
> > > a difference. When what she says
comes from an interview and is
> > > published by an intermediary, we have that intermediary's
> > > to hang our hat on. When what she
says is delivered in a lecture,
> > > have the host's reliability to
hang our hat on.
> > Nonsense. When I invite a speaker to the University of Florida to
> > give a lecture at a conference, I don't intend our invitation to be
> > warranty of their factual accuracy. Nor
do we offer such a warranty
> > when and if we post the transcript or video of the lecture on our
> > website, or even in our journal. All we do is vouch for the accuracy
> > of the transcription and claim to its significance in some fashion.
> > In the case of Teresa Nielsen Hayden, though, that significance is
> > longer in doubt.
> > There are two questions that matter here.
> > 1) Is Teresa Nielsen Hayden a source worthy of citing in matters
> > related to publishing?
> > 2) Does Making Light definitely contain material by her?
> > The answer to both is unquestionably yes. Here endeth the
Not really. Blogs have no editorial oversight, and their contents are
ephemeral - that is, they can change without notice, leaving evidence
of that change.
Newspaper stories online regularly change without notice.
When they makes changes they note that the online version has changed.
You mean, "they should note". It's certainly not universally done.